The Lords Committee, however, by its construction of the statute, found it unnecessary to pass upon the point of nullity. 541 For it reported that it appeared from the bill of exceptions that the ship put into port for repairs and for refreshment of the slaves, that she continued in port as long as she did because of the illness of the slaves. For these and other special reasons appearing in the bill of exceptions reversal of the judgment of the Court of Errors and affirmance of the Supreme Court judgment was advised. 542 This was so ordered by a July 15, 1768, Order in Council. 543 NULLIFICATION IN WESTMINSTER HALL As we have stated previously, in addition to declarations of nullity by the Privy Council it is possible that such declarations also emanated from the courts at Westminster, although the evidence upon this point is unsatisfactory. Several statements are found which assert that this power had been exercised by the courts at Westminster. In an opinion dated August 19, 1760, crown law officers Pratt and Yorke, two very able and well-informed lawyers, stated that the King in Council lacked the power to disallow in part Pennsylvania acts. But at the same time they were of opinion that there may be cases in which particular provisions may be void ab initio though other parts of the law may be valid, as in clauses where any act of Parliament may be contraversed or any legal right of a private subject bound without his consent. These are cases the decision of which does not depend on the exercise of a discretionary prerogative, but may arise judicially and must be determined by general rules of law and the constitution of England. And upon this ground it is, that in some instances whole acts of assembly have been declared void in the courts of Westminster Hall, and by His Majesty in council upon appeals from the plantations. 544 A year later Charles Yorke gave a private opinion in relation to a Jamaica ernor, Council, and Assembly of Jamaica and been confirmed by the King in Council every year from 1734 to the present time. And in the Act passed in 1763 there was added these words 'Whether for sale or not,' to which act the appellant entered a caveat against the King's confirmation of it; and had several hearings by counsel before the Board of Trade, i. e. those acts have not been disallowed." For the instruction referred to, see 2 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #939. But no account appears to have been taken of the dispensing force of the instruction at ibid., #941. 541 No evidence appears that the point was argued before the Committee. See the fragmentary notes on the hearings, Add. MS, 36,220/163-75. Compare the later view of Edward Long (1 The History of Jamaica [1774], 38) that the governor's instructions were restrictive, "as laws," upon the governor and his council; "the people will not receive them, and are not compellable to receive them, as laws." 542 PC 2/113/233. Endorsed on the Case of the Appellant is, "Judgment reversed on the excuse of necessity or convenience and not importing the negroes into Jamaica for sale" (Add. MS, 36,220/163). 543 PC 2/113/248. 544 5 Stat, at Large Pa., 735-36.